538 F. Supp. 992 - Fitzgerald v. Schweiker’s Empirical Analysis
1982
Citation profile
7 federal appellate · 5 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 25 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently March 2015 · most notably Heckler v. Ringer (1984), Kuehner v. Schweiker (1983)
7 federal appellate · 5 district · 2 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1257 · 28 U.S.C. § 1291 · 28 U.S.C. § 1361 · 42 U.S.C. § 1381A (§ 1602 of the Social Security Act of 1935) · 42 U.S.C. § 1382 (§ 1611 of the Social Security Act of 1935) · 42 U.S.C. § 1382A (§ 1612 of the Social Security Act of 1935) · 42 U.S.C. § 602 (§ 402 of the Social Security Act of 1935)
Relies on Mathews v. Eldridge · Gerstein v. Pugh · Weinberger v. Salfi · Sosna v. Iowa · Southeastern Community College v. Davis
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 25 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“for the period for which such [SSI] benefits are received.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“readily applied to the retroactive period”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“It is a serious imposition to force [claimants] to appeal to an AU or the Appeals Council in order to obtain their benefits, because benefits delayed are benefits denied. Moreover, some claimants presumably do not have the knowledge or energy to appeal a decision which grants them benefits and therefore appears to be favorable. The system of forcing claimants to appeal in order to obtain the proper amount of benefits thus denies some claimants the increased benefits altogether. Both classes of claimants, those subject to delay and those who fail to appeal, have a significant interest in prompt resolution of the class claim that the Secretary’s method of computation is improper.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Wilson v. Heckler
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.